Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/1987 FA Cup Final/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 9 March 2021 [1].

1987 FA Cup Final edit

Nominator(s): The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!), Amakuru (talk), 17:56, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly the most entertaining FA Cup final ever. Two teams going at each other pretty much from minute 1 to minute 120, and trust me, plenty of the tackles would have been yellow, if not red cards these days! Some great goals, an exhilarating match, a triumphant underdog, and if we're all honest, always lovely to see Glenn Hoddle lose. I commend this candidate to the house, along with Amakuru with whom this is a co-nom. All comments will be addressed as soon as practicable, as always. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 17:56, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Wehwalt edit

Would it be better to name the winner in the first sentence? Given how Google previews our articles with a short text, it might be better to state the winner early on.
I'm not so sure, it's the first I've heard of catering for Google searches, and it would somewhat fly in the face of just about every other article of its type I've ever seen or written. But also, when I Google it, there's an "infobox" on the right-hand side which says "Champion: Coventry City F.C." so I guess we already (inadvertently) have that covered! The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 20:39, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
More soon, busy day and then some.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:28, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "City started as favourites,[8] but the Yorkshire side started better," Can you avoid using the same verb in two different senses?
That's all I have, so I'll Support without further ado.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:08, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Wehwalt, that has been addressed. Cheers for the review and support. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 23:11, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Image review—pass edit

Images appear to be freely licensed. (t · c) buidhe 22:20, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 22:37, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Lee Vilenski edit

I'll begin a review of this article very soon! My reviews tend to focus on prose and MOS issues, especially on the lede, but I will also comment on anything that could be improved. I'll post up some comments below over the next couple days, which you should either respond to, or ask me questions on issues you are unsure of. I'll be claiming points towards the wikicup once this review is over.

Lede
  • Could we get a short description? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 12:19, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
     Done  — Amakuru (talk) 11:23, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • It was the 106th FA Cup final overall and was the showpiece match of English football's primary cup competition, the Football Association Challenge Cup - could we put the bit about it being the FA Cup final before mentioning it was the 106th edition.Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 10:01, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
     Done  — Amakuru (talk) 11:23, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe just personal preference, but the actual description of the match is a little bit too detailed in the lede for me.
    Hmm, I think it's OK myself. This article is supposed to be about the match, that's it's subject and everything else is the "background". Also, it was a five-goal "thriller" and we're not really describing much more than the goals. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 11:23, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The lede seems to be info on what the event is (para 1), the match (para 2), and a short bit on both teams not playing in Europe (para 3) - I think we are missing a bit on the background, post-match and the legacy.
  • I feel things like Clive Allen's 49th goal, the pundits thinking it was a great final and there being music released for the teams are suitable inclusions. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 10:01, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Done. I have expanded with the details you mention, and also a bit about the route to the final and the prediction of an exciting game.  — Amakuru (talk) 12:39, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Prose
  • Why is background after the road to the final? Don't you need a basic understanding as to what the event is before you talk about the bracket? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 10:11, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    This is a standard format, e.g. at 2018 FA Cup Final. It is a bit confusing though, and the section seems to be trying to combine genuine Background (competition details and the season etc), and things related speciically to the match (choice of referee, clubs songs etc). The 2017 EFL Trophy Final article does follow this approach. Following your suggestion I have therefore split this into two, and will hopefully add some more stuff to both sections later on. If TRM doesn't like this approach maybe we can revert or discuss... Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 11:23, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't mind at all. Once the torpedo reviews come in, it's all somewhat academic. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 11:57, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • John Sillett is now a duplicate link. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 10:11, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Fixed.  — Amakuru (talk) 10:41, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Curtis told the press "Our name is on the cup" - capital. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 10:11, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Fixed.  — Amakuru (talk) 10:41, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Returning from the team's brief trip to Spain to escape the cold - this seems to be an aside. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 10:11, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Reworded.  — Amakuru (talk) 10:41, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ossie Ardiles - our article is at another page name. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 10:11, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    True, but as that article notes in the lead, he was mostly known in Britain as Ossie. There might even be a case for renaming the page, but certainly on these shores that's his common name, and it's what the sources say in regard to 1987.  — Amakuru (talk) 10:41, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Both clubs recorded songs to commemorate reaching the final. London musicians Chas & Dave released a song called "Hot Shot Tottenham!" which reached number 18 in the UK Singles Chart.[22] Coventry's single "Go For It" reached number 61.[23] - this is quite a small para in the middle of the section, could do with moving/merging. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 10:11, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I have expanded it a bit with some other fluff about pre-match predictions.  — Amakuru (talk) 10:41, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • John Sillett, the other of Coventry's joint-managers - we have defined who this is already. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 10:11, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Fixed.  — Amakuru (talk) 10:41, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Additional comments

Additionally, if you liked this review, or are looking for items to review, I have some at my nominations list. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 21:08, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    • Apologies, I haven't forgotten about this, just on a small break, will be back with comments soon. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 15:22, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by SarahSV edit

The text supported by the game itself on YouTube seems to be a violation of WP:PRIMARY: "A primary source may be used on Wikipedia only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge."

For example:

"Three minutes later, a backpass from Coventry's Peake was chased down by Clive Allen, forcing Orgizovic to run from his area and make a hurried clearance which was intercepted by Hoddle. The Tottenham midfielder's shot was blocked by Peake whose pass to Ogrizovic was misplaced, allowing Clive Allen another chance which this time he struck into the side-netting." Source: 1987 FA Cup Final, 16 May 1987, 00:42:48–00:43:04

I can't tell from watching the YouTube video whether that's an accurate description. The sound is barely working for me; I don't know whether it's quiet for others too. I also don't know of any particular passage whether it's worth mentioning. Secondary sources are needed for these descriptions of the game. SarahSV (talk) 21:40, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. Which parts of the quote there couldn't be verified by "any educated person with access to the primary source"? I guess one could argue "hurried" is something which you would have to interpret from his movement, "misplaced" is something you'd have to infer from the fact that he didn't pass to his own team member, but otherwise I'm not sure what the issue is. Sounds quality is impeccable for me, by the way. This feels ominous though, and too much of a coincidence so I'll step aside and let my co-nominator take a look. If he decides we remove every element of interest which are pretty straight forward observations out of the match report, that's fine by me, I don't need those hours of my life back! Cheers for the interest. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 21:55, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Amakuru over to you, I'll field the other comments as and when! The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 21:56, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I hope you don't mind a drive-by comment from someone who has no involvement or investment in either football or FAC, and has come across this page sort of by accident. But is this not the same way we write plot summaries for articles about works of fiction? When writing an article about a film, for example, an editor will summarise what they see on the screen, which often involves some nuance, and we don't typically expect secondary sources to be used. Happy to be corrected if anyone feels this is not a good comparison. 97198 (talk) 07:57, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That's a very good point actually, 97198, which I hadn't even considered. Take an article such as The Beautician and the Beast, which became an FA in the past 12 months. The plot summary has no sources at all, the presumption being that the film itself is the (primary) source for this. It contains snippets such as "Joy frequently clashes with Pochenko, who is disturbed by her independence and his inability to frighten her", something which presumably requires someone to watch a substantial portion of the film and really gain an understanding of what's going on. I would say that, if anything, our links to precise timings for when a particular event took place, which can be verified from a one-minute clip without even watching the whole match, is a step up from the verifiability of that line above. @SarahSV does this satisfy your concerns over this? Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 12:36, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi 97198 and Amakuru, a key part of WP:PRIMARY is that the material can be verified "without further, specialized knowledge". But you do need some familiarity with soccer terminology to know what you're looking at in that game, e.g.

Regis played a pass to Downs on the left wing, whose deep cross was palmed out by Clemence for a corner, which came to nothing. Three minutes later, Mitchell Thomas fouled Gynn deep in the Tottenham half: the resulting free kick was eventually cleared to Gynn who passed to Regis whose cross was cleared but the ball fell to Phillips and his snap-shot was deflected away.

It might not matter if it were just a few sentences, but it's eight paragraphs and 52 citations. SarahSV (talk) 00:19, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
All "terminology" is linked. Being able to observe the source and correlate it to the activity within the video is straightforward - I asked my seven-year-old son to do it and he was just fine. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 07:35, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've struck my comment as I don't have time to follow up. Good luck with the nomination. SarahSV (talk) 03:25, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source review – Pass edit

Will do soon. Aza24 (talk) 08:53, 2 February 2021 (UTC) To keep with the sfn display pattern of citations, I've altered the youtube ones so they link directly to the video in the biblio; feel free to revert if there is disagreement to this[reply]

Formatting

References

  • No issues here

Notes

Reliability
  • Normally I err against youtube refs, and when nominators insist I encourage timestamps. Timestamps seem to have already been included (thank you!) and if there are no other sources that effectively summarize the game, I agree with the use here because of the time stamp's increased verifiability.
  • Nothing stood out to me as unreliable Aza24 (talk) 01:37, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Verifiability
  • Consistent inclusion of page numbers & timestamps, no issues here.
  • Both nominators have a history of FAs, so I've not checked web sources. Given the uniqueness of the mass yotube refs, I'll check some of these later and report back. Best - Aza24 (talk) 01:37, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    OK—I watched the time that encompassed refs 35–44; only one issue, ref 39 appears to be the wrong time stamps. The play doesn't match up to what the text says (from what I could gather, as a non-soccer/football person). I suspect this may be because the same time stamp for ref 37 was accidentally used in 39. Also, for me, ref 17 still says the date of the article was "31 May 2018" on the article in question, not "1 June 2018" as the ref says in the text...? Aza24 (talk) 07:38, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ref 39 is now fixed, as you noted, copy/paste error. Ref 17 clearly says "Archive: Coventry in FA Cup history 1 Jun 20181 Jun 2018 From the section FA Cup..." so 1 June 2018 is correct. Maybe there's a curious timezone issue thing going on but as this took place in the timezone from where I'm writing, I think we'll stick with it as-is. Cheers. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 08:49, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Fine by me. Pass for source review. Aza24 (talk) 01:52, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Accessibility review edit

  • The infobox allows for alt text parameter, as does the football kit template.
  • Image in post-match section needs alt text.
  • The tables in the route to the final section need captions. Heartfox (talk) 01:58, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Heartfox for your review. I think I've addressed your concerns, but don't hesitate to suggest amendments to improve accessibility where appropriate. Cheers. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 08:42, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Edwininlondon edit

Some comments:

  • Cyrille Regis had a goal disallowed --> would be better to say which team, or even better perhaps Tottenham's Cyrille Regis?
    Done. Although it's actually Coventry's Cyrille Regis 😊.  — Amakuru (talk) 11:16, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • decide the match: a cross: --> not so sure about that colon as the second bit is rather loosely connected to the first
    Reworded slightly.  — Amakuru (talk) 11:16, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • meant they were disallowed --> 2 consecutive sentences with meant
    Reworded.  — Amakuru (talk) 11:16, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • along with Tottenham who would have qualified for the 1987–88 UEFA Cup having finished third in the league --> I don't see this in the body, only here in the lead
  • at Highfield Road --> whose stadium is this?
    Added Coventry's.  — Amakuru (talk) 11:16, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • City won 3–0 --> In the lead Coventry City is abbreviated as Coventry. I think the article should use only 1 way and not alternate. I find the continuous switch between City and Coventry quite jarring. (Apologies if this has been discussed elsewhere and consensus is otherwise)
    Yeah, good point. This probably reflects the fact that the article was written by two different people! I've amended it to use "Coventry" throughout.  — Amakuru (talk) 11:16, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • fourth round match --> I think it's fourth-round match
    Done.  — Amakuru (talk) 11:16, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • at Old Trafford --> okay, now I know where the game is played but still, we should not assume the reader does. So I would add the word away to this sentence
    It should be obvious from the fact that it's not Highfield Road, but fair enough. I've added "away".  — Amakuru (talk) 11:16, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • to escape the cold Curtis --> I would add a comma to avoid a garden-path sentence
    The anecdote about escaping the cold has now been removed anyway per the above review.  — Amakuru (talk) 11:16, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • manager Alex Ferguson cited City's better play --> again alternation between City and Coventry (many more below as well)
    Done.  — Amakuru (talk) 11:16, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • on 21 February --> a bit odd to only mention the date of the 5th round match. I can understand that full dates for every match mentioned might create clutter, but if only 1 date I'd give the date of the 3rd round, not 5th.
    OK. I've mentioned that the third round was early Jan and removed the date for the 5th.  — Amakuru (talk) 11:16, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Second Division --> link?
    Done.  — Amakuru (talk) 11:16, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • the Yorkshire side --> this does not work so well for an international audience, unfamilar with the counties of England.
    Amended.  — Amakuru (talk) 11:16, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • after fourteen minutes --> my understanding of MOS:NUM is forever hazy but if there is one thing I do feel fairly sure about is that it is not okay to say within the same article fourteen minutes and 69 minutes and 19 minutes. May I suggest you check the whole article on x minutes consistency?
    Done. All amounts under 10 are now words, and 10 and above are digits.  — Amakuru (talk) 11:16, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Spurs --> in the lead Tottenham is used as abbreviation. I think the article should use only 1 way and not alternate
    Done.  — Amakuru (talk) 11:44, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Scunthorpe almost forced a replay in the final minute as Ray Clemence saved a Johnson header --> this may be just me, but the drama of "almost" is not well conveyed by the dry "as Ray Clemence saved a Johnson header". I'd write something along the lines of "Scunthorpe almost forced a replay in the final minute as Johnson's header nearly went in, but Ray Clemence saved"
    I've reworded it a bit, since I don't actually know if Scunthorpe "almost" / "nearly" scored or not. The source says "in the last minute, former Scunthorpe player, Ray Clemence, had to save a header from Johnson to prevent a replay" so perhaps it was an easy save. I have amended to say he "had the chance" to force the replay.  — Amakuru (talk) 11:44, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ossie --> this seems his nickname. I only know him as Osvaldo Ardiles, which is his article title. Any reason why nickname?
    Hmm, assuming you're "in London" as your username suggests I'm actually surprised that you would only know him as Osvaldo, because personally I only ever knew him as Ossie, and that seems to be mostly how the UK sources call him both in modern times ([2][3][4]) and in the 1980s ([5]). Ossie has also led in book sources from 1985 onwards. It's possible he's better known as Osvaldo elsewhere in the world, but per MOS:TIES I think we should stick with this.  — Amakuru (talk) 11:44, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The 1987 final was the last match of the 1986–87 FA Cup and the 106th final of the FA Cup, the world's oldest football cup competition --> this is a bit out of place. I would expect this to be the first sentence after the lead.
    I have already jiggled this per Lee's similar comment.  — Amakuru (talk) 11:44, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • a mix up --> hyphen missing
    Done.  — Amakuru (talk) 11:44, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • in the ninth minute levelled the score --> this does not match the Details section, where it says 8'. Some of the other goals line up but 63th and 96th minute also do not match
    Fixed.  — Amakuru (talk) 12:04, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • a backpass from Coventry's Peake --> Peake was just mentioned so that Coventry's bit is either not necessary or should be used in the previous sentence
    Done.  — Amakuru (talk) 11:44, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Before the teams kicked off --> perhaps add "again"?
    Done.  — Amakuru (talk) 11:44, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • with Bennett finding Gynn --> that's 3 times "with" in the last 25 words or so
    Reduced to just one.  — Amakuru (talk) 11:44, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • John Sillett, the other of Coventry's joint-managers, --> one of Coventry's joint-managers?
    This has been reworded now, as Sillett is introduced further up.  — Amakuru (talk) 11:44, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Notwithstanding the nitpicking above, overall the prose is pleasant to read and flows well. The article has the right level of info, as per my interpretation of MOS:JARGON. For instance, it does not explain basic football concepts, but mostly simply links to the relevant articles (I would add a few links, I see no harm in linking to substitute, penalty kick, corner kick). It also nicely stays on topic and for instance does not retell the cup's history. Nice work! Edwininlondon (talk) 16:20, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Edwininlondon: I think I've had a look at all the points above now. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 19:31, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Amakuru, The Rambling Man: Nudge. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:59, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Gog the Mild: apologies, I've been quite busy this week. Will hopefully have a proper look at this tomorrow or Sunday. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 15:49, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

All fine, but sorry, just a few more minor things I just spotted:

  • Allen's goal was his 49th goal of the season for Tottenham in the final which --> that "in the final" seems out of place? Copy/paste error?
    Fixed.  — Amakuru (talk) 10:09, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • to secure a 4–3 win for Coventry.[10][9] --> I'm personally not bothered but in the past other FAC reviewers have insisted on keeping the reference numbers in order, so [9][10]
    Yeah, I've always found that an odd one - I'd prefer it if the ordering reflected the ordering of the statements in the preceding sentence to make it easier to verify. I also don't care though, so I've flipped it as you suggest.  — Amakuru (talk) 10:09, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the 96th minute, Rodger --> that repetition is not great. Rephrase?
    Done. This was my bad, I accidentally changed 95th to 96th when I was adjusting the goal timings, not noticing that this was an unrelated 95th-minute incident. I've changed it to "five minutes into extra time", as I guess even "in the 95th... in the 96th..." could be a little jarring.  — Amakuru (talk) 10:09, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's it from me. Edwininlondon (talk) 20:38, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Very well. That's all I have, so I'll Support without further ado. Edwininlondon (talk) 21:49, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/1987_FA_Cup_Final/archive1&oldid=1011168237"